174 Glenwood Park Drive Glenwood NSW 2768

Approval for alterations and additions to a heritage-listed building for the purposes of operating a child care centre and associated works

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website ago. It was received by them earlier.

(Source: Blacktown City Council, reference DA-23-00018)

13 Comments

Create an account or sign in to have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. Yasaman Mousavi commented

    Can it be a nice cafe or restaurant please instead of child care?

  2. Briony Burton commented

    The residents of Glenwood are pretty unanimous on this. We don't want another childcare, we want a restaurant/cafe. There are none in Glenwood and this would be the perfect place!

  3. Nancy commented

    Glenwood does not need another Early Learning Centre. There are 7 within close proximity of one another and they are not full. There are a lot of family day care centre's in the area as well. There is not a demand for another centre in the area. The industry also has an educator shortage so even if it is approved as an early learning centre, they may not be able to find the staff to open.
    I feel this building would be great as a restaurant/pub/cafe as Glenwood needs more dining options.

  4. Jessica M commented

    Another Glenwood resident here who doesn't believe this property should be a child care centre. There is so much history which could be preserved and appreciated if the venue were turned into a cafe / pub / restaurant with the option for weddings and special events. The history of it being an orchard homestead could be utilised in the sale of local fresh produce.
    As others have said, we have enough child care centre options in the area.

  5. Tim Sinclair commented

    A pub, cafe or restaurant would be a sensational option for this space. As others have commented, there are numerous child care options in the area already.

  6. Mark commented

    This development was rejected number of time in past so why would council keep allowing this developer to lodge application ? does council believes that allowing this type of re-submission will discourage people to make more comment and dodgy development get ahead in the system or does liberal or labor politician wanted their mates to get ahead with development at any cost and hence allowing re-submission??

    this is not a residential building application, this is specific commercial premise application within a suburb which has more then 7 child care and many many other home day care within suburb and the worst thing is that there is EXISTING CHILD CARE centre just opposite this new proposal (150m) which doesn't make any sense to community neither should it be allowed to resubmit this application again.

    what happened to those 50 plus comment made 2 year ago? were they resolved or council wanted to discourage people to make comment and hence allowing this type of dodgy application to be re-submitted again and again?

    GLENWOOD RESIDENT PLEASE MAKE COMMENT ELSE THIS DEVELOPER WILL GET AHEAD with APROVAL.

    LOCAL Labor Member of Parliament has time to SPEAK AGAINST INDIAN PRIME MINISTER POLICY but has not said a single word to SPEAK AGAINST A DEVELOPMENT WHICH COMMENT AT LARGE DOESN"T WANTED and ask simple question WHY ?? what is it in this DEVELOPER That local councillor and member of parliament keep quiet ??

    REMEMBER SPEAK AGAINST INDIAN PRIME MINISTER WAS THE WORST THING LABOR DID but not speak against this development is the reason why i will vote against LABOR this election in MARCH.

  7. KL commented

    This will destroy heritage fabric of the facility. How do you control kids? Council should not allow this to happen under any circumstances, as modification required to make building compliant will cost a big time in heritage value the suburb will loose. Also changes in building standard in future would require further modification and once this application approved then council or planning committee can not stop future changes if childcare start operating here.

    There is massive queue in the morning peak hours due to peak hours traffic that start from 7am for people trying to get to work in car, people trying to catch metro station at norwest also use this road to get to parking facilities, parklea school, existing childcare on same road just 150m from this proposal and so additional childcare will make it worst for local residents.

    Please reject this application in a same way it was rejected previously. The company should be fined in their attempt to waste everyone time with repeated attempt.

  8. J Thomas commented

    This is the last of the heritage building left in Glenwood (exter farm is another but it had different character) and should be register on State Heritage and not just on Council local register to avoid similar attempt by the developer.

    Those fake comment about lack of childcare places don't know that Glenwood has Seven Operational Childcare approved at this moment with new one just opened in 2022 with places available for kids. In addition Glenwood has number of Family day care available with empty places, so lack of places in childcare in Glenwood is fake. No other suburb within Blacktown LGA has similar facility as in Glenwood where you will find seven childcare within radius of 2km.

    Current Childcare proposal is 200m from existing GoodsStart Childcare and 250m from Parklea School. So traffic in the morning and afternoon peak will be disaster as we don't just deal with traffic from childcare & schools but we also dealing with traffic going through Miami St to Balmoral Rd and to the Metro station. So left in/ left out won't provide any solution to traffic congestion.

    This is a good site to convert and restore it's heritage value and used as a community place which could be a book store or reading facility or social art classes would suit best for this location as that can be operated during off-peak time.

    Council must reject proposal to convert this heritage building into Childcare but certainly can consider restoring & operating as a social space where community can utilies the space and heritage feature & fabrics are preserved.

  9. Anthony A commented

    Just to those local who don't know heritage value of the building please visit NSW Heritage Website. This Two storey houses built in 1853 from the Victorian era are rare in Blacktown and it is the ONLY ONE in GLENWOOD.

    Council need to make sure that any traffic study submitted with this application includes traffic count pre-covid and post opening of Miami St/Balmoral Rd realigned intersection and carried out during normal days without school holidays. Traffic congestion more than doubled after Miami St/Balmoral Rd intersection re-aligned as people not only use this internal road to bypass Sunyholt Rd & Old Windsor Rd but also use it as shortest route without traffic signal to go to Metro Station and also go further on Windsor Rd. This traffic in addition to traffic we have for school makes queue longer than 1.5km in the morning 7am onward for the parents dropping kids at the existing childcare opposite this proposal site but also for business & commuter trying to go through Glenwood Park Drive. Traffic situation is worst between 7:00am to 9:15am every morning and same in the afternoon. Council should get the Data from TMC before Covid 19 started (excluding Christmas and January as traffic is low across Sydney during this time of year). Traffic study must consider future development around Glenwood in particular planned development for Parklea market...and rezoned area that in my opinion considering around Miami street (opposite metro station) and future development around norwest metro who will use Glenwood park drive to avoid sunnyholt road.

    Most children are dropped together with their sibling at the school and also traffic congestion during week days starts at 7am to 730am. Parents can not be forced to dropped their kids before 7:30am so that can not be used as assumption in the traffic study.

    Developer comment here suggested that "The new metro will help reduce traffic as well" is factually incorrect as the worst traffic condition observed since opening of the Miami St/Balmoral Rd re-alignment and data from TMC will suggest the same. In addition people not going to come into Metro and then walk to this new childcare to drop their kids so at least try to use some logic.

    Children don't learn & value culture by destroying heritage fabric and converting last remaining heritage house in the suburb to childcare. Certainly converting this building into museum or cultural or community centre or book store or medical centre would help kids to know history of Glenwood.

    Congestion is not just the biggest issue for this development but safe traffic movement through this road within 200m to the primary school & existing childcare will be biggest issue to the parents who actually sends their kids to the school. Any fatality due to road accident as a result of this development will be responsibility of the approving authority as certainly the new hazard will be created by this development is not warranted considering the fact that Glenwood has more than 7 childcare to serve the local needs within 2km radius and many more family day care at very reasonable rate within Glenwood, in addition suburb around Glenwood (Quakers Hill, Kinds Langley, Norwest & Parklea) also has many active childcare.

    Some of the comment suggest property investor loosing money so we should just let it convert to anything that makes money for the investor but the person failed to realise that the investor was informed about the heritage status of the building before purchase so he/she bought it by knowing that this place can only be used with limited possibility that aligns with heritage character of the building. No one forced property investor to purchase this property so he / she is not loosing money they are just getting what they expected of this property. There are other use of the building that could includes medical centre (previously approved usage) or offices that has restricted start time of 9:30am onward but childcare is the worst possible conversion. Glenwood only has 4 Medical centre with long queue at Glenwood Medical Centre all the time of the month so contrary to Childcare demand this suburb needs a new medical centre and that is what council should consider subject to preservation of heritage fabric. Medical centre was previously operational at this facility and can be operated without significant changes to the internal structure.

    Just to those local who don't know heritage value of the building please visit NSW Heritage Website. This Two storey houses built in 1853 from the Victorian era are rare in Blacktown and it is the ONLY ONE in GLENWOOD. So please save the history for future generation and most importantly locals don't want more traffic and safety hazard for the kids going to Parklea School, people living and commute driving through Glenwood Park drive. Council and Planning authority should reject conversion to Childcare.

  10. Scott M commented

    Council should reject this application due to significant traffic congestion in the morning peak on Glenwood Park Drive.

    In addition Memorial Avenue widening project is recently awarded for construction and works will continue for three year which means more additional traffic will be put on Balmoral Rd which will go through Miami Street and then Glenwood Park Drive to other suburbs to avoid heavy traffic anticipated due to road closures and Narrowing of Memorial Avenue due to construction works. Approving authority needs to make sure that no additional traffic is added to Balmoral Rd/Miami Street as a result of Memorial Avenue widening project. For another 3 to 4 year until Memorial Avenue widening is completed no new development should be permitted on Glenwood Park Drive similar to Childcare.

    It takes more than 25 - 30 minutes to drive from Woolworths on Glenwood Park Drive to Maimi Street in the morning peak hours (Pre-covid) which is only 1.5km through Glenwood park drive.

    Local resident don't need this development as Childcare or any other development that generates concentrated traffic during school hours is not welcome and council should reject it. Safety of the school children should be considered first and this development will create additional hazard for the locality.

    Once this development is rejected then council should make sure that Memorial Avenue widening is not adding additional traffic during construction on to Miami St / Balmoral Rd.

  11. Robin Chacko Puliparambil commented

    Being a Glenwood resident i believe that building has a lot of history and character. Turning it to a day care centre would need a lot of modifications to meet the required child care standards which will ruin it. I do not think that would be the right approach. Ideally this place should be made into a publicly accessible centre such as a cafe or restaurant in order to really be able to enjoy the heritage that it holds.

  12. Shauna Wilson commented

    The subject site is Zone R2 Low Density Residential in the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015.
    1 Objectives of zone
    • To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.
    • To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.
    • To enable certain activities to be carried out within the zone that do not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

    I note that the use proposed may, be permitted, with consent, however it is not a use provided by right to a property owner under the zoning. It is contended that it is appropriately within the responsible authority's scope to refuse the granting of any permit.

    The Proposal responds negatively to Clause 5.10 of the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015 Heritage Conservation.

    Indeed the subject site contains, and wholly consists of, a parcel described as Lot 2009, DP 831033 listed in Part 1 Heritage Items of Schedule 5 of the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015.

    The Proposal fails to respond appropriately to Clause 7.7 of the Blacktown Local Environmental Plan 2015 Design Excellence.

    The height, scale and massing of the proposal will dominate the surrounds and fail to respond positively to the surrounding context.

    The proposal will create excessive visual bulk and respond negatively to the surrounding context.

    The proposal facades lack articulation, rhythm and a blend of textures, colours and finishes that embody design excellence and respond positively to the surrounding context.

    The proposals exterior does not contain low reflectivity finishes and reflectivity of light associated with the site's security at night will unreasonably impact the amenity of surrounding sites.

    The amount of setbacks provided will create excessive visual bulk, domination and overshadowing and respond negatively to the surrounding context.

    The proposal and its use will generate unacceptable traffic and pedestrian safety impacts and also acoustic and amenity impacts arising from the traffic generated.

    The proposal and its use will generate unacceptable acoustic impacts that will unreasonably impact the amenity of the surrounding sites.

    Due to inhouse catering on a commercial basis typically assosicated with the proposed use, the proposal will generate unacceptable odour impacts upon adjacent sites.

    The extent of impermeable areas within the proposal will generate an excessive discharge of concentrated stormwater onto surrounding sites, the public realm and also the stormwater network.

    The proposal fails to provide an appropriate traffic management plan, and sufficient parking spaces for staff and visitors based all or in a substantial majority on B99 motor vehicles.

    The proposal fails to ensure that site traffic including B99 motor vehicles can safely enter and exit the site without amenity, local traffic, and pedestrian safety impacts.

    The proposal fails to ensure within acceptable vehicle turning radius according to the B99 standard and fails to avoid excessive vehicle manoeuvring all of which will add to unacceptable local traffic impacts when the carpark is full and also add within to unacceptable pedestrian safety impacts.

    The proposal fails to contemplate permeable paving, driveway spoon drain and contemporary best practices in water sensitive urban design and is at risk of altering the direction, volume and velocity of overland water flows as well as adding to those via discharge of stormwater.

    The proposal fails to contemplate suitable screening and isolation of waste bins so that:
    access by birds and vermin is prevented;
    bin bay is not graded and bunded and does not contain a drain that discharges to the sewer network to prevent environmental pollution;
    visual impact of waste is minimised noting that the future area may include double story homes.

    Insufficient geotechnical reports, site and soil investigations have been conducted by suitably qualified experts in order to identify, catalogue and protect heritage and archaeological objects.

    Insufficient investigations have been conducted into the soil of the site to identify any hazardous materials or other matters of concern.

    The proposal will generate unacceptable environmental impacts including overshadowing of adjacent sites at winter solstice, loss of local views, obstruction of wind, inundation of adjacent sites during heavy rainfall.

    The proposal fails to respond appropriately to the topography of the site and the surrounding area.

    The applicant has provided insufficient expert reports to support its contention that the proposal is an appropriate planning outcome specifically including but not limited to:
    acoustic impact
    archaeology and heritage
    boundary survey report
    site and local area map including elevation contours
    hydrology and engineering
    wind mapping
    traffic
    solar access and overshadowing
    wind
    light
    odour

  13. Shauna Wilson commented

    I wish to add further matters to my objection submitted a few minutes ago.

    The proposal provides for insufficient retention of environmentally significant trees and vegetation.

    The proposal provides for insufficient canopy trees, shrubs and other plant types of the local indigenous ecological vegetation class.

    The proposal contains insufficient meaningful landscaping opportunities and insufficient deep soil zones.

    The proposal is excessively dominant because it lacks sufficient landscaped areas to buffer its design impacts.

Have your say on this application

Your comment and details will be sent to Blacktown City Council. They may consider your submission when they decide whether to approve this application. Your name and comment will be posted publicly above.

Create an account or sign in to make a comment

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts